An Explicit Watson–Ichino Formula with CM Newforms
Abstract.
In this paper, we extend the work of Humphries–Khan [HK20] to establish an explicit version of Watson–Ichino formula for , where is a Hecke–Maass form and is a CM newform.
Key words and phrases:
Watson–Ichino formula, CM form, -function1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to establish an explicit Watson–Ichino formula for triple product -functions of a special class of Hecke–Maass forms. To begin with, let be irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of with the product of their central characters trivial, where is the adele ring over . One can consider the (complete) triple product -function associated to them, which was originally defined classically by Garrett [Gar87] and was generalized further by Piatetski–Shapiro and Rallis [PSR87] using an adelic approach.
Gross and Kudla [GK92] established an explicit identity relating central -values and period integrals (which are finite sums in their case), when the ’s correspond to cusp forms of a prime level and weight . Watson [Wat02] generalized this identity to higher levels and weights, and Ichino [Ich08] proved an adelic version of this period formula which works for all the cases. In this paper we study the case when the quaternion algebra in [Ich08] is and the étale cubic algebra is over . Then the Ichino’s formula can be reformulated (cf. [Col20]) as follows: for any , ,
where is diagonally embedded in as its center, is defined so that is the Tamagawa measure on , is the adjoint -function attached to , and the local constants are defined as in (2). Moreover, for , when all are unramified, and are unit spherical vectors.
Many authors have derived several explicit versions of Watson–Ichino formula in various cases. For example Nelson [Nel11] extends Watson’s formula and relates
where is the upper-half plane, is a Hecke–Maass form of level and is a newform of square-free level ( can be holomorphic of weight or a Maass form). In this case the triple product -function can be factorized as by comparing Euler products. Recently Humphries and Khan [HK20] show an exact formula for (see (1)), where is a Hecke–Maass form and is a dihedral Maass newform (which associates to a Grössencharacter on where is a positive squarefree fundamental discriminant). With this formula [HK20] unconditionally gives a proof of the Gaussian moments conjecture for the fourth moment of dihedral Maass newforms. This explicit Watson–Ichino formula also has some applications in studying quantum variance. Huang and Lester [HL23] give an asymptotic formula for the harmonic weighted quantum variance of the family of dihedral Maass forms on with restricted by some congruence condition.
In this paper, we continue the work of Humphries–Khan [HK20] and Hu [Hu17] to establish Theorem 1.1, an explicit version of Ichino’s formula for , where is a CM newform and is a Hecke–Maass form. These explicit formulas will have, for example, an application to quantum variance for CM newforms following the idea of [HL23].
1.1. Main result
Let be a positive integer and be the space of square-integrable functions on the upper-half plane such that for all . The inner product in this space is defined by
But for functions such that with (for example, holomorphic modular forms of weight ), is defined to be the Petersson inner product whenever the integral converges:
Notice that is -invariant in the latter case, and the convergency holds if the inner product is defined on cusp forms.
An integer is a fundamental discriminant if either , and is squarefree, or , and is squarefree. For each there exists a quadratic extension of such that has discriminant . One can also define a (quadratic) Dirichlet character modulo by the Kronecker symbol .
For an imaginary quadratic extension with negative fundamental discriminant , consider a Hecke character on (its associated classical Grössencharacter is also denoted by ), whose restriction on is trivial. Assume that it is unramified everywhere at finite places. At infinity we have for some . Recall that, when and does not factor through the norm map , there is a cuspidal newform (cf. [Rib77] and [Iwa97, Theorem 12.5])
with complex multiplication of level , weight and nebentypus such that . Here the sum is over all integral ideals of , and is the norm of .
All the -functions in this paper are complete without conductor, for example,
is defined as in [Ich08] (instead of the one in [HK20] that ).
We will prove the following explicit Watson–Ichino formula. See Theorem 2.1 for the more general statement.
Theorem 1.1.
Let with a fundamental discriminant, be the set of (normalized) Hecke–Maass newforms of weight and level with trivial nebentypus. For any CM newform and Hecke–Maass newform normalized such that the Petersson norms are , we have that, if or is a Type-2 supercuspidal prime for , then
(notice that is -invariant), where
otherwise, when and is a Type-1 supercuspidal prime for , is times above. For oldforms we have the same result for
for any .
Remark 1.2.
Let be a positive squarefree fundamental discriminant, and . [HK20, Corollary 4.19] shows that, for any dihedral Maass newform and Hecke–Maass newform , and for any ,
(1) |
Theorem 2.1 also leads to the fact that, the above identity holds when is any positive fundamental discriminant (either or is squarefree) and , or 2 is not an “unramified” dihedral supercuspidal prime (i.e. not a Type-1 prime) for , except that does not hold in this case. (If and is “unramified supercuspidal” for then the result is multiplied by .)
One may notice the extra condition does not show up in [HK20]. The reason is that they assumed (and therefore ) squarefree. Otherwise, if , that is to say, if is supercuspidal (this is the only possible case because ), the local -factor at depends on the “type” of , which equals either or . More details can be found in Section 3.4.
Remark 1.3.
This explicit Watson–Ichino formula may have some potential applications, for example, in studying quantum variances, following the idea of Huang and Lester [HL23]. To study the distribution of -mass for certain forms, for example, dihedral Maass forms or CM forms , define
for any smooth test function with mean zero which decays rapidly in the cusp, where is the level of , and the weight of . The proposed quantum variance corresponding to these CM forms could be defined by a sum of the form
as . Theorem 1.1 gives an explicit formula to write the summands as the central values of certain -functions, when is a Hecke–Maass cuspidal form (old or new). It is possible to establish an asymptotic formula, which relates the (harmonic weighted) quantum variance of the family of CM forms on , to its “classical variance” . See [LS04, HL23] for more details.
1.2. Organization of the paper
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we fix notations and normalization, recall the Watson–Ichino formula in classical language and show how the local constants can be assembled into the global result.
By definition a CM form is associated with a Grössencharacter of an imaginary quadratic extension with discriminant . When is squarefree, the main result is nothing new comparing with Humphries–Khan’s version, except that the archimedean local constants are different (see Proposition 2.2), which has been calculated in [Wat02]. But when , the general case cannot be avoided when the levels of and are not squarefree. More precisely, for the new case when is supercuspidal, inspired by the work of Hu [Hu16, Hu17], in Section 3.3 we will deal with the Kirillov model of and calculate some special values of Whittaker function of a new vector. Finally, following ideas in [MV10, Hu16, HK20] we will calculate in Section 3 the local constants (Propositions 2.3, 2.4, 2.5) for special, spherical, and supercuspidal respectively, which completes the proof of the Main Theorem 2.1.
2. An explicit version of Watson–Ichino Formula
Let be a positive integer, and be a Hecke–Maass cuspidal newform or a holomorphic cuspidal newform with trivial nebentypus. Define the adelic lift of by
with given by the strong approximation where , , and . (When is a newform with nebentypus , the adelic lift is defined to be the above times , where is the character of given by applying to the lower-right entry.) Let be the cuspidal automorphic representation of generated by .
For finite places , we know is an unramified principal series representation if , and a special representation (an unramified twist of the Steinberg representation) if . When , we recall a certain classification of such (cf. [NPS14, Section 2.1.5]):
-
•
Type 1. is an “unramified” supercuspidal representation, i.e. , where is the unique nontrivial unramified quadratic character of . Equivalently is a dihedral supercuspidal representation associated with an unramified quadratic field extension and a character of that is not trivial on the kernel of the norm map . In this case we call a Type-1 supercuspidal prime for . (Actually is called an unramified supercuspidal prime in some other papers, for example, [BM19]. The reason we rename it in this paper is that, to call it “unramified” one might confuse it with the spherical representation.)
-
•
Type 2. is supercuspidal satisfying , with above. Again in this case we call a Type-2 supercuspidal prime for .
-
•
Type 3, 4, 5. is a ramified principal series, or a ramified twist of the Steinberg representation.
In this paper we focus on Type 1 and Type 2, i.e. is supercuspidal whenever . Actually Types 1 and 2 cover all possibilities in Theorem 1.1: when with a fundamental discriminant, the only possible such that is ; but the conductor exponent of is for the other three types when (because any character of cannot have conductor exponent ), while can never divide a fundamental discriminant .
Theorem 2.1.
Let be a positive integer, , and be a primitive Dirichlet character modulo . Assume that is a Hecke–Maass newform satisfying that, the corresponding local automorphic representation is supercuspidal whenever . Then, for any newform or which is a Hecke eigenform, normalized such that , we have that,
where
and with the parity of . For oldforms we have the same result, i.e.
for any , any normalized Hecke–Maass newform , and any normalized Hecke newform or .
Proof.
Using the notations in [HK20, Section 4.2], we denote by the adelic lifts of respectively, and by the cuspidal automorphic representation of generated by (). Here we have (the contragredient). Let or be a Hecke eigenform such that and are both associated to the same newform, and be the adelic lifts of (and define respectively).
We fix a -invariant bilinear local pairing on for each place and each , and use this to define a pairing on (where ) determined on simple tensors and by
Note that this is unique up to nonzero scalar. Then we define
(2) |
We follow the normalization of local Haar measures in [HK20, Section 4.2]. That is, the Haar measure on at any non-archimedean place is defined such that, under the decomposition of induced by the Iwasawa decomposition, the maximal compact subgroup has volume ; and the Haar measure at any real place is with , , where is the Haar measure on with volume .
The Watson–Ichino formula gives
(3) |
where . This formula differs with the one given in [HK20, Section 4.3], because the local constant at infinity becomes , given by Proposition 2.2, and also because the -functions in [HK20] are defined with conductors.
Notice that (cf. [Wat02] or [LW12]) for , the local component of is a unitarizable ramified principal series representation , where the unitary characters of have conductor exponents
and . (Here is the local component of the Hecke character corresponding to .) Also, are all local newforms in corresponding representations. However, in this paper, the assumption that might not be squarefree, leads to more cases for than those listed in the proof of [HK20, Corollary 4.19]. We list all the cases for as follows.
-
(i)
When , the local component of is a special representation , where is either the trivial character or the unramified quadratic character of .
-
(ii)
When , the local component of is a unitarizable unramified principal series representation , where and .
-
(iii)
When , under our assumption of this theorem, the local component of is a supercuspidal representation with trivial central character and .
In all these cases and are translates of local newforms by and respectively. (When , is just the local newform; and so is it for and .)
The following propositions determine all the local constants we need in the above proof.
Proposition 2.2 ([Wat02, Theorem 3]).
For , let denote the weight of and let denote the local root number. Then
Now let be a nonarchimedean local field with uniformizer and cardinality of the residue field. The proof of the followings can be found in the next section.
Proposition 2.3 (cf. [HK20, Proposition 4.16]).
Let and be principal series representations of for which the characters of have levels (i.e. conductor exponents) and , and let be a special representation with and . Suppose that are irreducible and unitarizable, so that are unitary. Then if are all local newforms,
This also holds if either or both and are translates of local newforms by and respectively, where .
Proposition 2.4 (cf. [HK20, Proposition 4.17]).
Let , , and be principal series representations of with and . Suppose that are irreducible and unitarizable, so that are unitary while . Then if are all local newforms,
This also holds if either or both and are translates of local newforms by and respectively, where .
Proposition 2.5.
Let , be as above, and be a supercuspidal representation of with . Suppose that are irreducible and unitarizable, so that are unitary. Then if are all local newforms,
where is the (nontrivial) unramified quadratic character of . This also holds if either or both and are translates of local newforms by and respectively, where .
3. Local calculation in the Watson–Ichino Formula
Let (in this section we drop all the subscripts ) be a nonarchimedean local field with ring of integers , uniformizer , and maximal ideal . Let , where the norm is such that for .
Let , and define the congruence subgroup
for any nonnegative integer . We normalize the additive Haar measure on , the multiplicative Haar measure on , and the Haar measure on so that
with . Denote by the center of , by the diagonal subgroup with lower diagonal entry equal to , and by the usual upper triangular unipotent subgroup of . Denote by the usual Borel subgroup of . For and , we set
3.1. Whittaker models
Let be an irreducible admissible smooth representation of . Let be the level (or the conductor exponent) of , which is the smallest nonnegative integer such that . In this case the invariant space is -dimensional, and we call a nontrivial vector in this subspace a newform in . In this section and are newforms unless otherwise specified.
Fix a nontrivial continuous additive character of . Assume that is unramified in this paper, i.e. the smallest integer such that is trivial on is . Let be the space of all smooth Whittaker functions, i.e. all smooth functions on satisfying
If is generic, i.e. there is a nontrivial intertwining map , we denote the image by and call it the Whittaker model of .
For generic irreducible unitarizable representations with a principal series representation, and for in the induced model of , , and , we define the local Rankin–Selberg integral by
Michel and Venkatesh [MV10] show a result that relates and the local constants in the Watson–Ichino formula.
Lemma 3.1 ([MV10, Lemma 3.4.2], [HK20, Lemma 5.2]).
For , and with newforms, we have
whenever is tempered.
Notice that both and are -invariant. The following lemma, together with Lemma 3.14, reduces the calculation of local constants to determining the values of these functions at
Lemma 3.2 (cf. [Hu16, Lemma 2.2]).
Fix an integer . For any left -invariant and right -invariant function , if integrable, we have
Proof.
By the same way of proving [Hu16, Lemma 2.2], one can also show that, for any right -invariant function , if integrable, we have
(4) |
with defined as in the above lemma, where is the normalized Haar measure on such that has volume , and is the left Haar measure on such that has volume . Lemma 3.2 is a direct corollary of the above formula. ∎
Remark 3.3.
The generalization in [HK20, Lemma 5.18] of (4), which says that Lemma 3.2 holds for any right -invariant function, is wrong. In fact, is not a complete coset representatives for ; one can show that for . Luckily, the functions they integrate in Section 5.3 of [HK20] are actually left -invariant, so their calculations work well. See Lemma 3.14 for more details.
We are interested in the following cases: , are principal series representations with both unitary, and , so that ; and is one of the following cases:
-
•
a special representation with unitary and unramified and , or
-
•
a principal series representation with and so that , or
-
•
a supercuspidal representation with trivial central character and .
In particular, the central character of is trivial, so is self dual and . One can take the newforms so that in both the induced and Whittaker models.
Next we will calculate the values of Whittaker functions case by case.
3.2. Whittaker functions for induced representations
For a principal series representation or a special representation , and given a vector in the induced model of , denote by
the corresponding element in the Whittaker model . (This differs with the definition in [HK20] by an inverse of , so that holds.) Here the normalization of follows [MV10, Section 3.2.1] so that the map is isometric, where the invariant bilinear pairings on on the induced model and the Whittaker model are defined respectively by
with the Haar measure on such that .
For , with and , we recall the following results.
Lemma 3.4 ([Sch02]).
The newform in the induced model of is given by
Its corresponding Whittaker function has ; for any ,
by taking complex conjugates (so that ) we have
Now we work on the values of for , here , .
Proof.
Let
When ,
(5) |
Notice that if and only if , and hence if and only if . In particular implies . The calculation of and follows that in [HK20, Lemma 5.12].
When , let . We have that
(6) |
By the definition of ,
For define . Let . We have and
and then
By the following lemma, unless , in which case
∎
Lemma 3.6.
Let be an unramified additive character of and a ramified character of with level . For a positive integer let be a subgroup of . Then for ,
Proof.
We follow the proof of [Sch02, Lemma 1.1.1]. Write for and . Then
If , we take and then . The inner integral becomes
It vanishes when . And when it equals .
If , we take and then because that is unramified. The inner integral becomes
∎
To study the values of newforms in we have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.7 ([Sch02, HK20]).
-
•
For with unitary and unramified, the newform in the induced model is
Its corresponding Whittaker function has ; and for any ,
-
•
For with unitary and unramified, the newform in the induced model is
and for any ,
Notice that is -invariant. To study the oldforms we need the values of
Actually, in this paper, only the case when is necessary (see Section 3.5).
Lemma 3.8.
Let be two integers.
-
•
For , if , is equal to
if , it is equal to
-
•
For , if , is equal to
if , it is equal to
Recall that [HK20, Lemma 5.17] calculates the spherical case for , .
Proof.
One can verify that
Since is -invariant in both cases, we have
When we have the following Iwasawa decomposition
(7) |
and then
By the proposition of Whittaker model we have
where is the central character for .
At last one can show Lemma 3.8 from Lemma 3.7, noticing that the central character of is , and that when .
∎
3.3. Whittaker functions for supercuspidal representations
For a supercuspidal representation of , given the fixed additive character , the Kirillov model of is a unique realization on the space of Schwartz functions such that
(8) |
where is the central character for (which is trivial in this paper). The Whittaker function corresponding to satisfies
where the invariant bilinear pairing on on the Kirillov model is given by
In particular we have for and for .
For any function in the Kirillov model of which is supported only at , can be written as a linear combination of characters on by Fourier inversion:
(9) |
We say that contains level components if for some level character (and that it is of level if it consists of only level components). Obviously contains level components if and only if
for some level character .
Lemma 3.9.
Let be any function supported only at . We have
only if has some level (and also level 0 if ) components. In general, if is of level , then consists
-
•
of only level components if ,
-
•
of only level components if , and
-
•
of all level components if .
Proof.
It is sufficient to show the lemma for where is any level character and is the characteristic function of . [Sch02, Lemma 1.1.1] shows that,
(10) |
and for any ramified character of ,
(11) |
Then, for any character of (we extend to be characters on by defining ),
(12) | ||||
This completes the proof, noticing that and that inequality holds only if .
∎
The Bruhat decomposition says that , where and is the upper triangular Borel subgroup of . Then the action in the Kirillov model can be expressed purely in terms of and . We recall a fact that shows the operator on some multiplicative characters.
Fact 3.10 ([JL70], [BH06, Theorem 37.3] and [Hu16, Proposition A.1]).
Let a supercuspidal representation with trivial central character. Assume that it has conductor . Let be a multiplicative character of with level . The action of in the Kirillov model of satisfies
(13) |
where is independent of and (except when the residue field of is of characteristic and ). In particular
(14) |
Next we recall a lemma about the new vector in a supercuspidal representation and the values of its corresponding Whittaker function.
Lemma 3.11 ([Hu16, Lemma 5.10], [Hu17, Corollary 2.18]).
For a supercuspidal representation with trivial central character, the new vector in the Kirillov model is , the characteristic function of . Its corresponding Whittaker function satisfies:
-
•
for any ; and therefore .
-
•
For , is supported only at , and it consists of only level (and also level if ) components; the exception happens when the residue field of is of characteristic (the central character is assumed to be trivial in this paper), is an even number and , in which case is supported at , consisting of level components.
-
•
Moreover we have
where .
Next we generalize the above lemma.
Lemma 3.12.
With assumptions and notations in the above lemma,
-
•
for ,
-
•
for , in general,
vanishes unless (or when ); in the exceptional case when the residue field of is of characteristic , is even and , the integral vanishes unless and ;
-
•
in particular for ,
where .
Proof.
When or the lemma is [Hu16, Lemma 5.10(2)(3)].
Recall that
When , is simply the new vector. The integral is equal to
(15) |
(see (10) for the last step).
To study the oldforms we need the values of for .
Lemma 3.13.
With assumptions and notations in the above lemma, for an integer ,
-
•
if , then
and
-
•
if , is supported only at , and
is equal to
where .
3.4. The adjoint lift of a supercuspidal representation
A supercuspidal representation of is called unramified (i.e. of Type-1 as we have defined in Section 2) if for some unramified character of . (By comparing central characters one can see that is quadratic.) Let be the (nontrivial) unramified quadratic character of . [GJ78, Corollary 1.3] gives the -factor of the adjoint lift of a supercuspidal representation:
In the case when the residue field of has characteristic , the “unramification” of a supercuspidal representation is actually equivalent to its “dihedralness”. Recall that is called dihedral (cf. [Bum97, Theorem 4.8.6]) if it is associated with a quadratic field extension and a character of that is not trivial on the kernel of the norm map from to . (One can also find the construction in [BH06, Section 19].) The Tame Parametrization Theorem (cf. [BH06, Section 20.1]) says that every supercuspidal representation of is dihedral if the residue characteristic of is an odd prime; but when the residue characteristic is , only the unramified ones have such correspondence: is supercuspidal and unramified if and only if it is “unramified” dihedral, i.e. it is associated with an unramified quadratic field extension . (The equivalence of “unramified supercuspidal” and “unramified dihedral” is also true when , cf. [BH06, Section 20.3].) This explains the assumption of the Maass form in Theorem 1.1.
3.5. Local constants in the Watson–Ichino formula
To apply Lemma 3.2 to the calculation of the local Rankin–Selberg integral , we need the following result.
Lemma 3.14.
Fix an unramified additive character of . Let , be principal series representations of with both unitary, and . Let be a generic representation of with trivial central character and . Then, for in the induced model of , and , the function defined by
is left -invariant and right -invariant.
Proof.
Any can be decomposed as with and , and we have that
Recall that, the action of is given by the central character:
and the action of is given by proposition of induced model or Whittaker model respectively:
Therefore
and hence
for any , with since .
At last the assumptions on the conductors of these three representations imply the right -invariance of , and thus of . ∎
The above lemma still holds if , are all generic with level , and with central character such that .
By the definition of together with Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.14, is equal to
Recall that, by Lemma 3.4, the new vector in the induced model of , where , satisfies
This means we only need to work on the case with . The integral becomes
By Lemma 3.5 we have
To study oldforms one only need to replace with for .
3.5.1. Proof of Proposition 2.3
For (so the result works for both newforms and oldforms) and with , Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8 show that
Therefore
By (11) one has
So the numerator in the local constant is
The denominator in is given by
By definition we have
and hence ; also
We get that
3.5.2. Proof of Proposition 2.4
For and , we have shown that
Then
We now get the numerator
For the denominator, the normalization of newform implies . Then
Recall that
therefore
Recall that the local -factors are given by
One can simplify that
3.5.3. Proof of Proposition 2.5
For supercuspidal (with ), is supported only at . By Lemma 3.12 we see
where . Moreover, for the oldforms, we have shown in Lemma 3.13 that is supported only at , and for we also have
So in both cases we have
The numerator is
For the denominator, recall that
and hence
(16) |
The local L-factors are given by
let be the (nontrivial) unramified quadratic character of . By [GJ78, Corollary 1.3] we know
One can simplify that
3.5.4. Direct calculation by matrix coefficients
One can also calculate the local constants by the methods used in [Hu17], which is to calculate directly the matrix coefficients: by definition,
where denotes the normalized matrix coefficient
We consider the case when is supercuspidal for example. Let for some , . For , one can generalize the results in [HK20] and show that
-
•
is equal to
-
•
is equal to
-
•
For , is equal to
And is the complex conjugation of . For supercuspidal, [Hu17, Proposition 2.19] shows:
-
•
is supported on and ;
-
•
for , is supported on , , and
-
•
for and , is supported on , ; it is of level as a function in .
Next we show that all other terms (when ) vanish. For ,
with
is supported only on , (so cannot happen). Therefore
For , is supported on . Since ,
For ,
which is possible only if (recall that ). Under this assumption is supported on
but in this case does not hold. That means, on the support of , vanishes. So again
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Bingrong Huang for suggesting this problem, and to thank Zihao Wang and Hongbo Yin for helpful discussions. The author also thanks the anonymous referees for making helpful comments on an earlier version which led to improvement of the exposition. This research was completed while the author was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2021YFA1000700).
References
- [BH06] Colin J. Bushnell and Guy Henniart. The local Langlands conjecture for , volume 335 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
- [BM19] Debargha Banerjee and Tathagata Mandal. Supercuspidal ramifications and traces of adjoint lifts. J. Number Theory, 201:292–321, 2019.
- [Bum97] Daniel Bump. Automorphic forms and representations, volume 55 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
- [Col20] Dan J. Collins. Anticyclotomic -adic -functions and Ichino’s formula. Ann. Math. Qué., 44(1):27–89, 2020.
- [Gar87] Paul B. Garrett. Decomposition of Eisenstein series: Rankin triple products. Ann. of Math. (2), 125(2):209–235, 1987.
- [GJ78] Stephen Gelbart and Hervé Jacquet. A relation between automorphic representations of and . Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 11(4):471–542, 1978.
- [GK92] Benedict H. Gross and Stephen S. Kudla. Heights and the central critical values of triple product -functions. Compositio Math., 81(2):143–209, 1992.
- [HK20] Peter Humphries and Rizwanur Khan. On the random wave conjecture for dihedral Maaß forms. Geom. Funct. Anal., 30(1):34–125, 2020.
- [HL23] Bingrong Huang and Stephen Lester. Quantum variance for dihedral Maass forms. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 376(1):643–695, 2023.
- [Hu16] Yueke Hu. Cuspidal part of an Eisenstein series restricted to an index 2 subfield. Res. Number Theory, 2:Paper No. 33, 61, 2016.
- [Hu17] Yueke Hu. Triple product formula and the subconvexity bound of triple product -function in level aspect. Amer. J. Math., 139(1):215–259, 2017.
- [Ich08] Atsushi Ichino. Trilinear forms and the central values of triple product -functions. Duke Math. J., 145(2):281–307, 2008.
- [Iwa97] Henryk Iwaniec. Topics in classical automorphic forms, volume 17 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997.
- [JL70] Hervé Jacquet and Robert P. Langlands. Automorphic forms on . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 114. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970.
- [LS04] Wenzhi Luo and Peter Sarnak. Quantum variance for Hecke eigenforms. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 37(5):769–799, 2004.
- [LW12] David Loeffler and Jared Weinstein. On the computation of local components of a newform. Math. Comp., 81(278):1179–1200, 2012.
- [MV10] Philippe Michel and Akshay Venkatesh. The subconvexity problem for . Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., (111):171–271, 2010.
- [Nel11] Paul D. Nelson. Equidistribution of cusp forms in the level aspect. Duke Math. J., 160(3):467–501, 2011.
- [NPS14] Paul D. Nelson, Ameya Pitale, and Abhishek Saha. Bounds for Rankin-Selberg integrals and quantum unique ergodicity for powerful levels. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 27(1):147–191, 2014.
- [PSR87] Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro and Stephen Rallis. Rankin triple functions. Compositio Math., 64(1):31–115, 1987.
- [Rib77] Kenneth A. Ribet. Galois representations attached to eigenforms with Nebentypus. In Modular functions of one variable, V (Proc. Second Internat. Conf., Univ. Bonn, Bonn, 1976), pages 17–51. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 601, 1977.
- [Sch02] Ralf Schmidt. Some remarks on local newforms for . J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 17(2):115–147, 2002.
- [Wat02] Thomas C. Watson. Rankin triple products and quantum chaos. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2002.